Re: [111attendees] test

Hello

Has the meeting started  yet?

How do I ( a first time attendee) attend?

Thanks
Chukwuka

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <sb@stewartbryant.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Stewart
>
> On 23 Jul 2021, at 18:30, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Friday, July 23, 2021 16:37 +0300 Lars Eggert
> <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-7-23, at 16:26, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>
> I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person
> meeting part would require attendees even when being together
> in a room to use their notebooks for discussions instead
> of having a physical line at a single microphone, so that
> there is more fairness between local and remote, but that
> was never really discussed on manycouches or
> picked up their documents.
>
>
> that is because SHMOO is not chartered to work on guidelines
> for hybrid meetings - it is chartered to work on guidelines
> for fully online meetings. (I think I recall seeing that being
> pointed out on the manycouches list.)
>
> If community members would like to make proposals for hybrid
> meetings, that can of course be done via individual I-Ds. But
> SHMOO cannot begin work in this space without a rechartering.
>
>
> But, Lars, moving up several thousand meters...
>
> Independent of the more specific suggestions from several of the
> people you have copied and others, I think one of two things is
> true as a matter of logic.  Either (1) we are convinced that,
> realistically, fully in-person meetings are so far in the future
> that we should concentrate our energy on figuring out how to
> make all online meetings work as well as possible or (2) unless
> there is some likely flag day in the near further such that we
> can realistically plan on almost everyone coming back to
> "normal", in-person meetings all at once, we should be putting
> effort into figuring out how to do hybrid meetings well,
> starting with figuring out what "hybrid" means for us.
>
> If the first case applies, spending time in SHMOO and/or in
> consultations by the LLC fine-tuning criteria for going back to
> in-person meetings or whether the "next" meeting will be in
> person, is a waste of time and resource.
>
> Either way, it seems to me that, as IETF Chair and General Area
> AD, it seems to me, if the SHMOO charter and work are no longer
> a good match for the needs of the IETF, you have both the
> authority and responsibility to make that determination and to
> either shut things down or initiate a conversation about
> adjusting the charter so that things get onto a more useful
> track.  Or you could propose that people start working on a
> charter for a SHMHybrid WG that would compete with SHMOO for
> interested people, time, and resources (it is probably clear
> that I don't think much of that idea, but it is logically
> possible).
>
> It seems to me however that, unless you have a plan about how
> individual I-Ds --ones that the experience of the last 18 months
> suggests would be very controversial-- would reach consensus
> without a WG structure and be processed, is sort of missing the
> point.
>
> thanks for listening,
>   john
>   (for identification in this context: still, I believe, the
> only AD to have decided that a WG was going sufficiently off the
> rails to have shut it down in the middle of the meeting -- no
> IESG member is being paid big bucks by the IETF to be popular,
> only to Do the Right Thing.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
-- 
Sent from my iPhone